Satan and Lucifer, different?


#1

Are Satan and Lucifer two different Angels? I have heard that, and I have even heard that St. Thomas of Aquantis thought of them as different.


#2

Lucifer is the name of Satan before his fall.

Think of it as Aniken Skywalker and Darth Vader.


#3

That is how I understood it as well.

matt


#4

The language here is intresting, search your bible for the word satan (Douay-Rheims uses “satan” 48 times), satan is rarely used in the same verse as angels of any type (Job says that the angels came before God and Satan came among them, and Zec 3:1 DRB “And the Lord shewed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord: and Satan stood on his right hand to be his adversary.” Showing the angel of God infront of the high priest and Satan at his right hand, seperate).

Satan controls his angels (those which have fallen)

2Co 12:7 DRB “And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me.”

Satan can appear as an angel but that does not necessitate him being one, and Lucifer is not named in conjunction with Satan (Isaiah 14:12)

2Co 11:14 DRB "And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. "

Rather Satan is said to be a serpent and a dragon and the devil all of which never occur in conjuction with the word angel.

Rev 12:9 DRB “And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world. And he was cast unto the earth: and his angels were thrown down with him.”

Rev 20:2 DRB “And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.”

This leads to one of two conclusions, either satan was a Seraphim (the root seraph means “fiery serpent”) or he was something else. (Thomas Aquinas denies that seraphim can fall in the Summa part 1 question CIX)

note: please don’t reply by quoting the Catechism to me, especially 391-395 which deal with the fall of angels


#5

But for Grace - RE This leads to one of two conclusions, either satan was a Seraphim (the root seraph means “fiery serpent”) or he was something else.

Not quite sure what you were trying to say but it is certainly true. It resembles the Knight’s poem in Alice -

Either people like my poem

or else they don’t. :wink:


#6

Joe Kelley - The words connected with Satan indicate a snake or serpent (that is in the language), the only type of angel which is in any way refered to in terms of a snake are the Seraphim, St. Thomas Aquinas disproves that the Seraphim could have fallen.

After this point I left the conclusion open for discussion.


#7

Great analogy ! As good as it possibly can get !


#8

[quote="J.W.B, post:1, topic:25051"]
Are Satan and Lucifer two different Angels? I have heard that, and I have even heard that St. Thomas of Aquantis thought of them as different.

[/quote]

Exorcists say that they are two different demons, yes.

It was in the book The Rite, and also covered in the books by either Father Fortea or Father Amorth (I forget which one).

They don't elaborate on which is the worse one.


#9

[quote="But_for_Grace, post:4, topic:25051"]
This leads to one of two conclusions, either satan was a Seraphim (the root seraph means "fiery serpent") or he was something else. (Thomas Aquinas denies that seraphim can fall in the Summa part 1 question CIX)

note: please don't reply by quoting the Catechism to me, especially 391-395 which deal with the fall of angels

[/quote]

Aquinas seems to think that Satan was a cherub, although gifted with more intellect than any seraph would have, making him more prone to the sin of pride.

Thus in his intellect he surpassed all of the angels.

peace
steve


#10

[quote="thenobes, post:9, topic:25051"]
Aquinas seems to think that Satan was a cherub, although gifted with more intellect than any seraph would have, making him more prone to the sin of pride.

Thus in his intellect he surpassed all of the angels.

peace
steve

[/quote]

If Saint Michael and the other Archangels are next to the bottom, does it make them significantly weaker or less capable than a fallen cherub or seraph?

I do wonder how Thomas Aquinas figured out the ranking and whatnot. So much of what he said was so right (Transubstantiation); but some of what he said was wrong (Immaculate Conception). One wonders if it's just speculation and if it's healthy for us to really ponder on what he said.

It's fascinating to learn about but I'm shaky about giving credence to what might merely be, frankly, Aquinas' speculation.


#11

Does God named him satan? We people, just call him like that?


#12

[quote="Peaceforhonks, post:11, topic:25051"]
Does God named him satan? We people, just call him like that?

[/quote]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
Implies that it's derived from the Hebrew word for "the opposer."


#13

Sorry I was incorrect in my previous post. Satan was indeed a seraph. However, his superior knowledge put him above all others and in the class of a cherub as well.

By the way, CIX is 109, isn’t it? So you refer to:

Reply Obj. 3. The name Seraphim is given from the ardor of charity; and the name Thrones from the Divine indwelling; and the name Dominations imports a certain liberty; all of which are opposed to sin; and therefore these names are not given to the angels who sinned.

However, I did found:

QUESTION 63
The Malice of the Angels with Regard to Sin
(In Nine Articles)

We proceed thus to the Seventh Article:—

Objection 1. It would seem that the highest among the angels who sinned was not the highest of all. For it is stated (Ezech. xxviii. 14): Thou wast a cherub stretched out, and protecting, and I set thee in the holy mountain of God. Now the order of the Cherubim is under the order of the Seraphim, as Dionysius says (Cœl. Hier. vi, vii). Therefore, the highest angel among those who sinned was not the highest of all.
Obj. 2. Further, God made intellectual nature in order that it might attain to beatitude. If therefore the highest of the angels sinned, it follows that the Divine ordinance was frustrated in the noblest creature which is unfitting.

Obj. 3. Further, the more a subject is inclined towards anything, so much the less can it fall away from it. But the higher an angel is, so much the more is he inclined towards God. Therefore so much the less can he turn away from God by sinning. And so it seems that the angel who sinned was not the highest of all, but one of the lower angels.

On the contrary, Gregory (Hom. xxxiv in Ev.) says that the chief angel who sinned, being set over all the hosts of angels, surpassed them in brightness, and was by comparison the most illustrious among them.

I answer that, Two things have to be considered in sin, namely, the proneness to sin, and the motive for sinning. If, then, in the angels we consider the proneness to sin, it seems that the higher angels were less likely to sin than the lower. On this account Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), that the highest of those who sinned was set over the terrestrial order. This opinion seems to agree with the view of the Platonists, which Augustine quotes (De Civ. Dei vii. 6, 7; x. 9, 10, 11). For they said that all the gods were good; whereas some of the demons were good, and some bad; naming as gods the intellectual substances which are above the lunar sphere, and calling by the name of demons the intellectual substances which are beneath it, yet higher than men in the order of nature. Nor is this opinion to be rejected as contrary to faith; because the whole corporeal creation is governed by God through the angels, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii. 4, 5). Consequently there is nothing to prevent us from saying that the lower angels were divinely set aside for presiding over the lower bodies, the higher over the higher bodies; and the highest to stand before God. And in this sense Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that they who fell were of the lower grade of angels; yet in that order some of them remained good.

But if the motive for sinning be considered, we find that it existed in the higher angels more than in the lower. For, as has been said (A. 2), the demons’ sin was pride; and the motive of pride is excellence, which was greater in the higher spirits. Hence Gregory says that he who sinned was the very highest of all. This seems to be the more probable view: because the angels’ sin did not come of any proneness, but of free choice alone. Consequently that argument seems to have the more weight which is drawn from the motive in sinning. Yet this must not be prejudicial to the other view; because there might be some motive for sinning in him also who was the chief of the lower angels.

Reply Obj. 1. Cherubim is interpreted fulness of knowledge, while Seraphim means those who are on fire, or who set on fire. **Consequently Cherubim is derived from knowledge; which is compatible with mortal sin; but Seraphim is derived from the heat of charity, which is incompatible with mortal sin. Therefore the first angel who sinned is called, not a Seraph, but a Cherub.**Reply Obj. 2. The Divine intention is not frustrated either in those who sin, or in those who are saved; for God knows beforehand the end of both; and He procures glory from both, saving these of His goodness, and punishing those of His justice. But the intellectual creature, when it sins, falls away from its due end. Nor is this unfitting in any exalted creature; because the intellectual creature was so made by God, that it lies within its own will to act for its end.

Reply Obj. 3. However great was the inclination towards good in the highest angel, there was no necessity imposed upon him: consequently it was in his power not to follow it.

Note that Aquinas is answering the objection to Satan not being the highest angel. Aquinas replies that Satan is cale cherub because of his superior knowledge. He does however assume that Satan **was **the highest angel (reply objection 3). Satan must have been created almost in an order of his own.

peace
steve


#14

f Saint Michael and the other Archangels are next to the bottom, does it make them significantly weaker or less capable than a fallen cherub or seraph?

No. The point is that they are stronger than the demons because God made them stronger, just as God has so often picked the lowly to humble the powerful.

There’s also the point that an angel who deliberately turns his back on God is pretty much crippling himself to start out with. Fallen angels are more powerful than humans, but less powerful than they were as unfallen angels.


#15

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.